Daejeon District Court 2012Guhap340 (2012.05)

Cho Jae-chul201 Jeon 4742 ( December 21, 2011)

It cannot be deemed that a disposition to reverse the existing expression of opinion by the tax authority after recognizing the fact of self-determination.

In light of the fact that the tax authority received a preliminary return on the premise of reduction or exemption of capital gains tax and did not directly state the decision of reduction or exemption, and that it is merely presumed that the tax authority made a decision of reduction or exemption prior to the disposition of this case or expressed an opinion recognizing the fact of self-defense.

2012Nu2106 Revocation of the Ministry of Capital Gains Tax Imposition

IsaA

The Director of Budget Office

Daejeon District Court Decision 2012Guhap340 Decided September 5, 2012

December 6, 2012

January 17, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 against the plaintiff on May 4, 2011.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This Court's explanation on this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments, and sees them as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

(a) 6 pages 5 of the judgment of the first instance court is without evidence, and the following shall be added:

The land in this case owned by the Plaintiff is one-third of the 4,954 square meters of OOri 00 square meters of 00 0, 00 m2 in Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, and the Plaintiff was sharing the above forest and land, and the Plaintiff was also the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff and Doddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

B. Additional determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion of the trial of the trial

1) The plaintiff's assertion

Around September 2009, the Defendant recognized the Plaintiff’s self-determination of the instant land for at least eight years through the on-site verification and decided to reduce capital gains tax by 100%. In addition, at the stage of the request for pre-assessment review before the instant lawsuit was filed, the Plaintiff’s self-determination was recognized. Moreover, even at the Daejeon District Tax Office’s decision on the filing of objection, there was a judgment that the instant land does not constitute non-business land, which is premised on the premise that the Plaintiff had resided in the location of the instant land and was self-sufficient. Nevertheless, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to reverse the original decision without any clear ground, which is an illegal disposition that

2) Determination

Even according to the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to view that the Defendant rendered a reduction or exemption decision of 100% on the land of this case, or that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, if the purport of the entire pleadings is added to each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the following circumstances are recognized. In other words, according to the method of return and payment, the Plaintiff appears to have received a return of capital gains tax on the premise that the Plaintiff applied for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, and the Plaintiff did not directly state that the Defendant directly issued a decision of reduction or exemption of 10% on the premise. ② Although the written decision on the review on the propriety of taxation prior to the imposition of capital gains tax contains the expression “I would like to presume the Plaintiff’s self-determination,” it is difficult to deem that the Defendant recognized the Plaintiff’s self-determination on the land of this case beyond the original text on the basis of a written confirmation, certification and farmland ledger, and thus, it is difficult to view that the Daejeon District Tax Office did not reverse the previous decision without considering the Plaintiff’s belief that it did not exist.

3. Conclusion

Then, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.